Reference HKK/14/18
/unless the contrary is proved
Mr. Gaminara
Hong Kong have met our criticisms except for Clause 10 and sub clauses (1)(a) and (c) of Clause 1.
2.
The presumption to which Mr. Roberts refers in section 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is to the effect that if it is proved that any money or gift has been received by a public officer from a person having or seeking to obtain a contract from the government, the money or gift will be deemed to have been received corruptly. There is in my view no objection to a presumption on these lines being included in the new sub clause in Clause 4.
3.
As to Clause 14 (1)(a) and (c), we did I think, in our comments, indicate that these two provisions should be amended, because, in the last paragraph under the heading "Clause 14" it is stated that "the other provisions of this clause would be acceptable if the penal sanction were to be removed etc. This sentence to my mind indicates that sub-clause (1)(a) and (c) are not acceptable.
#
I suggest that you should go back to Hong Kong and ask them to amend these two provisions in the light of our previous comments. As regards Clause 15 I suggest you inform Hong Kong that we would like to see a draft of the new Clause 15, which is to preserve the confidential nature of instructions to a legal adviser, before agreeing.
4. As to Clause 10, if the question as to accepting Clause 10 is to go to Ministers then, in my view, it should be put to Ministers who may well decide as a matter of policy that the clause is unacceptable. It is only if Ministers wish to assist Hong Kong by accepting this clause that the need to refer it to the Law Officers would arise. If the question were put to the Law Officers before being put to Ministers, I think it probable that the Law Officers would ask for the views of Ministers to be obtained before they advise.
5. Mr. Carter had a copy of the papers relating to the Prime Minister's directive. Of course Mr. Roberts has not heard of this directive as it was a directive to Whitehall Departments and I see no reason why he should be supplied with a copy of it as it is not intended for the guidance of colonial governments.
af hratton Baller
(Sir A. Grattan-Bellew)
W 44/2
4 February, 1970
'I